[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080201171022.GC2159@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:10:22 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Regression] 2.6.24-git3: Major annoyance during
suspend/hibernation on x86-64 (bisected)
* Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com> wrote:
> On 01/02/2008, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> > ---
> > - restore the old wakeup mechanism
>
> and how does it change behavior, logically-wise?
>
> do we somehow miss a 'wake-up' from kthread_stop() so that its caller
> gets blocked until watchdog's msleep_interruptible(10000) timeouts? On
> average, it would take +-5 sec. and might explain the first
> observation of Ravael -- "...adds a 5 - 10 sec delay..." (although,
> lately he reported up to +30 sec. delays).
>
> (/me goint to also try reproducing it later today)
thanks - i cannot reproduce it on my usual suspend/resume testbox
because e1000 broke on it, and this is a pretty annoying regression.
We'll have to undo the hung-tasks detection feature if it's not fixed
quickly. (there's no point in debugging features that _add_ bugs)
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists